Keynesian Klaptrap

[Philboid Studge]

Brick, the odds that I'll watch a 58-minute video that you posted are about the same that I'll get a strip-o-gram from the dancing corpse of Ayn Rand later today.

But to answer your question, if Uncle Milty says that people who advocate progressive taxation are "hypocrites" because they won't individually send their money to the treasury, then yes, he's an idiot too.

[ubs]

I'm stunned that the commies didn't post this one.

We look at the story of 300 foreign students who came to the United States as part of a work-study program and found themselves engaged in what they refer to as captive labor at a Hershey’s packing plant in Palmyra, Pennsylvania. The students — from Eastern Europe and Asia — went on strike two weeks ago, after they were reportedly required to lift heavy boxes, work eight-hour shifts beginning at 11 p.m., and stand for long periods of time while packing candy on a fast-moving production line.

Federal agencies have launched four investigations into the alleged exploitation. The walkout apparently marks the first time that foreign students have engaged in a strike to protest their employment. The guest workers are demanding a return of the $3,000 to $6,000 each student paid for the cultural exchange program to work at Hershey, that Hershey end exploitation of J-1 student cultural exchange workers, and that the 400 jobs the guest workers filled instead be given to local workers paid a living wage.

Of course PA is the third world, so you're gonna get this sort of thing.

[psychodiva]

this commie is too busy reading the Brit papers to notice an obscure story in a merkin one

[Brick]

Philboid Studge wrote

Brick, the odds that I'll watch a 58-minute video that you posted are about the same that I'll get a strip-o-gram from the dancing corpse of Ayn Rand later today.

But to answer your question, if Uncle Milty says that people who advocate progressive taxation are "hypocrites" because they won't individually send their money to the treasury, then yes, he's an idiot too.

Ah, more of a soundbite guy then?

What about a guy who admits the govt is wasteful, but then advocates higher taxes anyway?

Sam Harris wrote

Some readers will point out that I am free to donate to the treasury even now. But such solitary sacrifice would be utterly ineffectual, and I am no more eager than anyone else is to fill the pork barrels of corrupt politicians. However, if Gates and Buffett created a mechanism that bypassed the current dysfunction of government, earmarking the money for unambiguously worthy projects, I suspect that there are millions of people like myself who would not hesitate to invest in the future of America.

[Philboid Studge]

Brick, it is clear that you -- and I think to an extent Victus and ubs -- suffer from severe binary-only thinking. A concept to you is either correct or incorrect, with no allowance for the niggling grey bits in between. That's fine, but it's Exhibit A for why Idiotarianism has little relation to the actual world.

But your myopia is even worse than your Randian colleagues' because you appear to be mildly retarded as well as monochromatic.

Let's use your wife to illustrate Harris' point:


Let's say, Missus Brick represents government -- a bloated, omnivorous, resource-wasting tub of lard. Supposing you say, 'She too damn fat to even fuck anymore!' That doesn't mean you're not going to at least try to fuck her, does it ? I mean there's still a useful cooze under there, somewhere. For fuck's sake. (Literally!)

[Anyway, Harris isn't calling for 'higher taxes,' he's saying the wealthy should assume a greater burden than they do. And if you can find someone to read the article to you, you'll see he agrees with you that whatever the private sector can do, it should do. He even allows that taxes could be lower for everybody, if an alternative revenue stream were available.]

[psychodiva]

[psychodiva]

or

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Economics-Du.../dp/0470879483

[Victus]

Phil wrote

That's fine, but it's Exhibit A for why Idiotarianism has little relation to the actual world.

Does this mean you're ready to take my bets on what the real world data actually show? If I'm so far off the mark, you're passing up a free $100 bonus (ow two)!

[Brick]

Philboid Studge wrote

Brick, it is clear that you -- and I think to an extent Victus and ubs -- suffer from severe binary-only thinking. A concept to you is either correct or incorrect, with no allowance for the niggling grey bits in between. That's fine, but it's Exhibit A for why Idiotarianism has little relation to the actual world.

"My sensor reads a bullshit obfuscation, Captain."

Some things are binary. It's impossible for it to be raining and not raining at the same time in a particular location.

If the question is "should rich people pay more taxes?", possible answers can be "no, keep them the same" or "no, cut them" or "yes, hike them a lot" or "yes, increase them somewhat" and so on. However, all the anwers can be neatly divided into two groups.

PS wrote

Let's say, Missus Brick represents government -- a bloated, omnivorous, resource-wasting tub of lard. Supposing you say, 'She too damn fat to even fuck anymore!' That doesn't mean you're not going to at least try to fuck her, does it ? I mean there's still a useful cooze under there, somewhere. For fuck's sake. (Literally!)

So we should stick with something terrible and not try to change it because it still has a tiny bit of redeeming value? If the govt is too big, what's wrong with wanting to cut it down or at least stop its growth?

Say you're writing an article- naturally it's full of grammar and spelling mistakes, logic blunders, run-on sentences, bad jokes, wet spots from your drool, and so on. The editor reads your POS article and points out these flaws. Do you make changes or publish it as it is?

PS wrote

[Anyway, Harris isn't calling for 'higher taxes,' he's saying the wealthy should assume a greater burden than they do. And if you can find someone to read the article to you, you'll see he agrees with you that whatever the private sector can do, it should do. He even allows that taxes could be lower for everybody, if an alternative revenue stream were available.]

Junior, what exactly is the difference between calling for higher taxes on the rich vs. saying the rich should assume a greater burden? We both know what that burden is and who will be imposing it. This is same empty-headed mindset that thinks it can get around a war by calling it a "kinetic military action."

[Brick]

If you want to understand the Great Depression, watch this video. Friedman's part is the first 25 min. The rest is a panel discussion.

Friedman explains the Great Depression

[ubs]

Brick wrote

If you want to understand the Great Depression, watch this video. Friedman's part is the first 25 min. The rest is a panel discussion.

Brick, this video is advocating bailouts. Are you an advocate of too big to fail?

[Brick]

No, but it's bizarre that the Federal Reserve failed to do the one thing that it was set up to do.

If there had been no Federal Reserve, the banks would probably have been more careful in order to avoid going belly up.

Fuckin' moral hazards, how do they work?

[ubs]

Brick wrote

No, but it's bizarre that the Federal Reserve failed to do the one thing that it was set up to do.

That was weird. For me it was less of a parable about moral hazards and more about the limitations of the hairless monkey when placed in positions of power.

Whether by social design or inheritance, protecting people from failing is instituting a caste system. The corollary to "Too Big to Fail" is "Too Little to Succeed." Every criminal banker saved by political connections and drooling beneficiary of nepotism is plugging a spot that could be filled by someone capable and motivated but denied access as an accident of birth.

The cost to all the players of this stagnation is huge and such an age old problem. It was the reason Shaman were not aloud to marry and the reason Chinese bureaucrats were castrated. And here we are having to learn it all over again.

[Philboid Studge]

Brick wrote

It's impossible for it to be raining and not raining at the same time in a particular location.

That would depend on the size of the location. If it were as large as Mrs Brick's fanny*, e.g., there could be torrential droppings in one area, while other regions are only a bit boggy and dank.

Yes, some things are binary. You're either a dense cunt or a dumb twat. It's 50/50.

Harris wants a return to tax levels the U.S. had had for decades. You can call that "raising taxes" if it makes you feel better, but in the article you linked to (but haven't bothered to read) he isn't even proposing that. He is calling on rich people to form a consortium and chip in voluntarily--and to specifically bypass the government. I thought idiotarians approved of such freedom. Guess not !

Keep on this steady learning curve and you'll be retard cum laude in no time.

*This holds with Merkin or Brit definition

[Brick]

Philboid Studge wrote

That would depend on the size of the location. If it were as large as Mrs Brick's fanny*, e.g., there could be torrential droppings in one area, while other regions are only a bit boggy and dank.

Nope, try again. If the question is "is it raining in England?"- no wait, scratch that. It's always raining somewhere in England. If the question is "is it raining in NYC?" if it's raining anywhere in NYC, the answer is "yes".

PS wrote

Harris wants a return to tax levels the U.S. had had for decades. You can call that "raising taxes" if it makes you feel better, but in the article you linked to (but haven't bothered to read) he isn't even proposing that. He is calling on rich people to form a consortium and chip in voluntarily--and to specifically bypass the government. I thought idiotarians approved of such freedom. Guess not !

Are those tax levels more than what they are now? Well, that would be raising taxes then.

Harris had a different tune in this article.

"Contrary to many readers’ assumptions, I am not recommending that the federal government confiscate productive capital from the rich to subsidize the shiftlessness of people who do not want to work. Nor do I imagine that a mere increase in income tax can erase the national debt. However, to the eye of this non-economist, it seems obvious that spending a few trillion dollars wisely, on projects that will improve our infrastructure, create jobs, and hasten our progress toward energy independence, would be a good thing to do. Yes, I share everyone’s fear that our government, riven by political partisanship and special interests, is often incapable of spending money wisely. But that doesn’t mean a structure couldn’t be put in place to prevent poor uses of these funds. Leaving aside fears of government ineptitude, please tell me why it would be a bad idea for the rich to fund such a bank voluntarily."

Another brain-dead Keynesian... If only the right people were in charge!